Name For A400m
They may not like it but the JSF is going to be called Dave...
It was actually the F-4J(UK) and was flown exclusively by 74(F) Sqn.
The C-17 is nicknamed the "Buddha" because it is fat, doesn't move and everyone worships it. So, maybe, the Mini-Buddha?
GF
Couldn't be FRED, already taken by the original FRED, but it is one.
GF
Couldn't be FRED, already taken by the original FRED, but it is one.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK, US, now more ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Age: 41
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Motleycallsign I'm suprised that Airbus called it A400M in the first place and not the 'EuroFreighter'.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,937
Received 2,851 Likes
on
1,219 Posts
Quote:
Motleycallsign I'm suprised that Airbus called it A400M in the first place and not the 'EuroFreighter'.
Sometimes the best solutions are the simple and too obvious to notice.. Nice.
Motleycallsign I'm suprised that Airbus called it A400M in the first place and not the 'EuroFreighter'.
Sometimes the best solutions are the simple and too obvious to notice.. Nice.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,937
Received 2,851 Likes
on
1,219 Posts
Royalistflyer 'Ere Nutloose - I used to live in Fortess Road - wot a liberty!
I can see it now, a blue plaque mounted on the wall outside yer old ex abode....
'Ere lived Royalistflyer, we named a plane after the street he once lived in.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A440M Name
Please tell me the RAAF are not in the least interested in the A400M. After fifty two years of service from the "Lockheed Legends", in four different models, why on earth would the RAAF look at the Airbus product. Massively expensive and, to date, totally unproven.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Expensive and unproven
Certainly, the F111 did eventually turn out to be a great aircraft, albiet very much later than anticipated. The "Wing carry-through box" problems took a long time to overcome before the RAAF took delivery. My point is that the C130, from the original "A" model through the "E" and "H" to the current "J" model have all served the RAAF extremely well in all sorts of roles and environments. With the C17 already in service, and the C130 still in production and available if required, what is the point in the RAAF leaving a proven performer for one yet to be proven?
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Europe
Age: 55
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lockheed Legends?
Sure, do you wanna use them another 40 years?
The thing is, when you want something new, it's usually unproven at first - until it's proven. Of course Oz can wait another 20 years or so and then take a number of Grizzlys (that appears to be the name Airbus engineers chose for it). Upon reflection, I'd call it the Westminster, though...
The thing is, when you want something new, it's usually unproven at first - until it's proven. Of course Oz can wait another 20 years or so and then take a number of Grizzlys (that appears to be the name Airbus engineers chose for it). Upon reflection, I'd call it the Westminster, though...
I remember the time when the Australians would have happily walked away from the C-130J but the UK was so desperate we talked the Australians into staying with the project.
The problem common to both the A400M and the C-130J is the concept of building and certifying them as civil transports before turning them into military aircraft; it don't work, the manufacturers are clueless on how to do it and it certainly aint cheap.
BTW I like the sound of Atlas C Mk 1
The problem common to both the A400M and the C-130J is the concept of building and certifying them as civil transports before turning them into military aircraft; it don't work, the manufacturers are clueless on how to do it and it certainly aint cheap.
BTW I like the sound of Atlas C Mk 1